Fluoridation – topical confusion

Some people claim both supporters and opponents of fluoridation agree on one thing. That the benfits of fluroide come from topical application and not via systemic intake or ingestion of fluoridated water.

Well, that’s not quite correct. There is a semantic confusion. Researchers aret talking about mechanisms – that once teeth have erupted they are protected by the presence of fluoride in saliva and the biofilm on the teeth. A topical mechanism of protection. This can come from procedures not involving ingestion – fuoridated toothpaste, fluoride varnishes and other dental applications, but also from fluoridated water passing the teeth during drinking. Some ingested fluoride can also contribute to salivary fluoride after metabolism.

Yet the anti-fluoridation activists commonly assert fluoridation of water does not work because, they claim, it doesn’t contribute to this topical mechanism. Effectively they are choosing to interpret the topical mechanism as meaning a topical method of application or delievery is required.

The claim

The basic premise that swallowing fluoride prevents tooth decay has been disproved. When water fluoridation was first introduced en masse in the 1950s, dentists argued that fluoride needed to be ingested by children — while their teeth were developing — in order to be effective. The theory was that by swallowing fluoride it would accumulate in the teeth and make the enamel stronger and less susceptible to decay. However, since 1999 this theory has been rejected by all dental researchers (Featherstone 2000; Fejerskov 2004) and now the belief is that the primary benefit from fluoride is topical rather than systemic. That means it has to be applied to the teeth, not swallowed.

Well, we should all know that scientific knowledge is provisional and therefore changes as we accumulate more evidence. And we should be happy with that fact. But notice the word “applied. The awareness of a topical mechanism of action does not mean that fluoridated water is ineffective because it is drunk and ingested.

What researchers actually say

What did these researcher actually say? For example, FANNZ cite Featherston (2000). The paper is The science and practice of caries prevention, – here is a quote from the abstract which I think is sufficient to make my point:

Far from a topical mechanism excluding a protective effect from fluoride in drinking water it actually provides a mechanism for fluoridated water to be effective becdause it is incorporated into the saliva and biofilms during drinking..

Read the review for the details, but basically it involves fluoride present in saliva and the biofilm on the tooth surface reacting with calcium and phosphate dissolved during acid attack and producing an insoluble F containing bioapitate which is incorporated into the tooth structure because it has a lower solublilty than the bioapate which doesn’t contain substituted F.

The frequent drinking of the fluoridated water supplies F at an appropriate concentration to the tooth suraces, biofilms and saliva. So the review concludes

“More than 60 years of intensive research attest to the safety and effectiveness of this measure to control caries. In this case, however, it should be emphasized that despite being classified as a ‘systemic’ method of fluoride delivery (as it involves ingestion of fluoride), the mechanism of action of fluoridated water to control caries is mainly through its topical contact with the teeth while in the oral cavity or when redistributed to the oral environment by means of saliva. Since fluoridated water is consumed many times a day, the high frequency of contact of fluoride present in the water with the tooth structure or intraoral fluoride reservoirs helps to explain why water fluoridation is so effective in controlling caries, despite having fluoride concentrations much lower than fluoride toothpastes, for example. This general concept can be applied to all methods of fluoride use traditionally classified as ‘systemic’. In the light of the current knowledge regarding the mechanisms by which fluoride control caries, this system of classification is in fact misleading.”

As well as this topical mechanism for protecting exisiting teeth the current research still indicates some health benefits from ingestion:

“Evidence also supports fluoride’s systemic mechanism of caries inhibition in pit and fissure surfaces of permanent first molars when it is incorporated into these teeth pre- eruptively.”

Contribution from topical methods of delivery

The review I quote above also discusses these other methods of fluoride delivery like fluoridated toothpaste and dental treatments like varnish and fluoride gel applications. In these cases the fluoride is delivered at a much higher concentration and reacts with calcium to form calcium fluoride crystals. These have a low solubility but can release fluoride at the low concentrations suitable for providing protection to teeth by the topical mechanisms discussed above. They effectively act as fluoride reserviors near the teeth.

Despite the effectiveness of these methods of delivery they usually have disadvantages because of the high concentrations of fluoride involved. Problems can arise if they are accidentally or intentionally ingested. Young children are also prone to poison themeselves if such materials are left in unsecure places.

Saliva fluoride from ingested water

FANNZ has also tried to make an issue of the low concentratio of saliva F derived through metabolism of ingested fluoride. In fact, they sometimes claim that advocates of fluoridation still present that as the main method of delivery. The quote from their website above goes on:

“Dentists continue to promote fluoridation as they say there is also a smaller benefit from swallowing fluoride because it gets into peoples saliva and helps to remineralise the teeth.”

“The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.

Looks convincing, eh? But, and this is important, they stop their quote there, omitting the important following sentences:

“However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100-to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.”

So, in reality, the report they quote, and especially the part they intentionally omit says the complete opposite of what they claim about that report:

“The CDC acknowledges that fluoridated water has no cariostatic effect.”

The complete opposite. The CDC acknowledges nothing of the sort.

Unfortunately I am finding this sort of blatant misrepresentation and distorting is very common in the FANNZ propaganda. I urge readers to approach their literature with caution. To think critically (as one always should) and to actually check their citations by reading the originals.

*Update

It’s a confused response relying on a bit of strawmannery, irrelevant chemical assertions and an unjustified assumption that F in fluoridated water can not possible have a topical effect. So I will just make a few points:

1: It is normal to reference and link to an article being criticised. FANNZ didn’t do so – perhaps they want to avoid readers checking out my article?

2: Nowhere did I claim that drinking fluoridated water caused F concentrations in the mouth to magically increase to 16 ppm by a “chemical mechanism by which the saliva “sucked” the Fluoride out of the water in the fraction of a second it passes over the teeth.” Strawmannery.

3: FANNZ assumes that F has no topical effect at concentrations in fluoridated water (0.7 – 1.0 ppm). They justify this by citing 5 cherry-picked papers and ignoring papers which don’t support their assumption. The sources they use refer to studies made at high concentrations (considering topical application methods) or with sugar solutions.

The chemistry of F in saliva and at the tooth surface and subsurfaces is complicated – influenced by both thermodynamic equilibria and kinetic factors. Then influence of F depends on concentrations of Ca and phosphate, pH and organic material present. One should be very careful about extending findings from one situation to other situation.

As well as completely ignoring the conclusions in the CDC report they reference, FANNZ choose to ignore, for example, Featherston (2000)** who says:

“The cariostatic effects of fluoride are, in part, related to the sustained presence of low concentrations of ionic fluoride in the oral environment,derived from foods and beverages, drinking water and fluoride-containing dental products such as toothpaste. Prolonged and slightly elevated low concentrations of fluoride in the saliva and plaque fluid decrease the rate of enamel demineralization and enhance the rate of remineralization. For example, fluoride at 0,04 ppm in saliva can enhance remineralization.” [my emphasis]

56 responses to “Fluoridation – topical confusion”

Ken, do you know what the impact of fluoridated water, as compared to toothpaste or or using other fluoride dental products, would be?

Does fluoridated water raise the levels 100-1,000 fold for an hour or two?

““However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100-to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.”

When used appropriately, fluoride is a safe and effective agent that can be used to prevent and control dental caries. Fluoride has contributed profoundly to the improved dental health of persons in the United States and other countries. Fluoride is needed regularly throughout life to protect teeth against tooth decay. To ensure additional gains in oral health, water fluoridation should be extended to additional communities, and fluoride toothpaste should be used widely. Adoption of these and other recommendations in this report could lead to considerable savings in public and private resources without compromising fluoride’s substantial benefit of improved dental health.

Here’s the editorial in the latest NZ listener. Really relevant as the Hamilton City Council decides tomorrow if it will allow a referendum after popular rejection of their decision:

It’s time for decisions about the fluoridation of public water supplies to be taken away from local councils.
Hamilton is clearly being seen as a watershed of sorts, an unfluoridated one.

The city’s council was recently lobbied by a clever and bellicose campaign into abolishing fluoridation. Predicting further “highly organised campaigns of misinformation”, Health Minister Tony Ryall ordered officials to marshall the strong scientific case for both the health benefits and safety of fluoridation in strengthening and protecting teeth against decay. The anti-fluoridation lobby saw the win as a stepping stone to the likes of Auckland and Wellington.

Expect quite a contest. The anti lobby is a dogged foe. The Government and health officials are equally adamant that ­science, backed by decades of statistical and real-world evidence, supports the case for fluoridated public water supply. The problem is that although most population-based health policies are administered centrally, fluoridation has always been the province of local authorities – simply because they’ve always been in charge of water supplies.

This surely outmoded practice of leaving fluoridation to piecemeal local administration reached absurd levels in Hamilton. The councillors’ majority decision came despite the district health board strongly supporting fluoridation, and a 2006 referendum in the city finding 70% support for continuing it. Even allowing for the genuine anxiety of some about the side effects of fluoride, democracy has been trounced here. A clear public referendum result is a rare and powerful message that elected officials should honour. Equally, the local health authorities’ expert assessment of an issue should carry weight, not be seen as bias.

Ryall’s clear duty is to transfer the power to fluoridate from local to central government, rather than hoping his officials can browbeat councils into line. It is a legitimate matter of national public health policy. Local bodies are not allowed to vary ­immunisation policy, by comparison.

The affair also highlights how vulnerable public policy can be to the powerful psychology of all-or-nothing alternative thinking. We are all guilty of irrational thinking at some time, be it faith in the innocence of a convicted criminal or the miraculous benefits of a particular vitamin or plant extract. There are those, well-represented among anti-fluoridationists, who simply do not accept that long-term randomised, controlled trials are the gold standard for judging such things. Compounding this is the availability of plausible and compelling articles on the internet, allowing laypeople to believe they have effectively “researched” the case against fluoridation as discerningly as a trained scientist.

The anti-fluoridation movement seems to rest its case on two prongs: the alleged harm to individuals; and the ethics of refusing to allow individuals to opt out of ingesting fluoride in their drinking water.

The evidence is in: fluoridation is safe, equitable and easy to administer and it reduces tooth decay across populations by interfering with the demineralisation of enamel. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has listed water fluoridation as one of the world’s great health gains, alongside the likes of vaccination, car safety and the recognition of tobacco as a harmful substance.

Fluoride does have one occasional negative effect: fluorosis, the discolouring of teeth. But there is no reliable scientific evidence for claims such as multiple sensitivities in individuals. Health policy can’t be based on anecdote.

As to the claim that fluoride is toxic, all substances are toxic in a large enough dose, as Paracelsus noted 500 years ago. Including iodine, which is added to our salt, and even water itself. There are those who note that many Europeans don’t ingest fluoride in their water – but they are encouraged to get it through other methods, such as in toothpaste and salt.

As for the ethics of fluoridation, the argument usually relies on removing an individual’s autonomy not to consume fluoride. Countries that fluoridate their water do so because the benefits reach all levels of society: those most vulnerable to the agonies of poor teeth and the inability to pay to fix them outweigh the absolute desires of some individuals. Those with sincere misgivings about fluoridation can avoid it, as do those who avoid gluten or lactose. Many public policies, from cycle helmets to seat belts to the removal of the P ingredient pseudoephedrine from cold medication, are decided on the basis of the greater good.

It’s time to take this important public health issue out of the political playpen. The results are clear to see.

Perhaps Dan is responding to the latest orders from the anti-F network:

ALL OF AUCKLAND Action for today is to do one of the below: 1. Post Comments and links to our videos or other material on Facebook groups 2. Comment on blogs 3. Ring talk back shows 4. Write letters to newspapers”

Richard, it was merely an observation. If you and Ken can’t recognise its truth, you need to take a good hard look in the mirror. People like you, who advocate the continued blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code, are freaks. Nobody has yet explained to me why it is necessary to deliver toxic industrial silicofluoride waste via public water supplies, unlike any other medication.

The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense. Fluoridation is a product of corporate America, and anyone who can’t see that the American elite is psychologically sick isn’t paying attention.

From oxforddictionaries.com: medication – a drug or other form of medicine that is used to treat or prevent disease
medicine – a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease
drug – a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body

Ken, you aren’t very bright, are you? But I already knew that. The categories “element” and “medication” are not mutually exclusive. Fluoridation chemicals are added to water supplies for the stated purpose of preventing dental cavities, so by definition that makes the fluoride which is supposed to be the active ingredient a medication. Obviously the concept of context is too difficult for you to grasp, even when explained via straightforward dictionary definitions. Let me put it another way. The quality of being a medication is not inherent in a substance, it depends on whether or not it is being deliberately administered by people for a medicinal purpose, as opposed to merely being present in the environment. I’m fairly sure the toxic industrial silicofluoride waste doesn’t make its own way from phosphate fertiliser factories to public water supplies, it’s transported and added deliberately by people. I expect this is going way over your head.

Yes, Dan, I know you feel strongly about this issue but I can only repeat my advice to take a deep breath and count to 10. I am laid back because I know in a few months we will have a referendum and the democratic vote will decide (short of any stupidity on the part of new councillors).

Rather than being rude perhaps you should be urging a referendum in your own community.

Your semantic gymnastics are pointless as our governing authorities don’t define 0.7 ppm F as a medicine any more than they do for 0.3 ppm F. Consequently medical regulations don’t come into it – no matter how much you want to avoid that for your own political and deceptive purposes..

And yes, everyone knows that hydrofluorsilicic acid has to be transported from the manufacturer to the user. Just as toxic Cl2, alum, hydrochloride acid, ammonia and several other concentrated chemicals used in water treatment do. That’s why there are regulations covering their transport and use.

But only a fool, or someone completely ignorant of the chemical facts, would equate those toxic concentrated chemicals with the extremely diluted water coming out of your tap. Drinking water contains no hydrofluorosilicic acid even at low concentrations.

Or perhaps a dishonest, malicious person intent on misinformation and distortion if these facts would claim otherwise..

Ken, you do such a good job of making a fool of yourself it’s hardly worth responding. If the definitions of words were determined by “governing authorities” there would be at least two very different definitions of most words, so that they could choose the one which was most convenient whenever the need arose. And if nobody ever challenged governing authorities, the English, American, and French Revolutions would not have happened, and you wouldn’t be having your precious little referendum.

The evidence for complete dissociation of hydrofluorosilicic acid in water is not as solid as you think it is. I can only assume you have been swallowing the toxic waste pushing propaganda whole. Anyhow, fluoride ions appear to be just as toxic as hydrofluorosilicic acid. The phosphate rock from which phosphate fertiliser is produced contains about 2% to 4% fluoride, but if you put that much fluoride onto land which is fertilised it would harm the plants and any animals, including humans, which ate them. That’s what makes the fluoride toxic waste. There is also the fact that it’s contaminated with other cumulative toxins such as arsenic, and the chemicals used for artificial water fluoridation are industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113000087
Arsenic is a major concern with the toxic industrial waste which is used for fluoridation, as shown by this 2013 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy. The first two listed authors are William Hirzy and Robert Carton, both former senior scientists at the EPA.
“The US could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP [US Pharmacopoeia, i.e. pharmaceutical grade] NaF [sodium fluoride] in place of HFSA [hydrofluorosilicic acid] while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical [industrial] grade fluoridating agents. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realise similar benefits by making this change.”

I’m fairly sure the authors are not in favour of any kind of water fluoridation, and just went through the exercise to show the complete absurdity of government policy on this issue.

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/arsenic.cfm
From the Environmental Protection Agency:
“The MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] for arsenic is zero. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems. Based on the MCLG, EPA has set an enforceable regulation for arsenic, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 0.010 mg/L or 10 ppb. MCLs are set as close to the health goals as possible, considering cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies.”

Dan, I think your problem is that you are relying on the misinformation from the anti-fluoridation activists. As you can see in my articles here they are not a credible source for the science. Very often they are completely wrong and their use of citations is dishonest, to put it mildly.

Tha situation is not uncommon with activist groups – which is why a sensible person approaches such material with the ability to think critically. And one should be extremely aware of cherry picking and one’s own trendiness to conformation bias.

So I will take you up on some issues.

1: The hydrolysis and ionisation of HFSA – have you checked the literature? If you had you would find the statement “evidence for complete dissociation of hydrofluorosilicic acid in water is not as solid as you think it is” frankly just stupid. How about attempting to justify it. It’s actually quite easy to get precipitated silica rapidly from HFSA.

2: As for impurities in HFSA – check my article Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic mentals into our water supplies.
When I was working with the material I actually analysed it for heavy metals and was initially amazed at how low the levels were. Thinking about it, though, it is quite easy to separate out such heavy metals because of the differential boiling points of their fluorides. So it’s easy to produce pure HFSA satisfying the appropriate standards for drinking water.

3: I am familiar with Hirzy’s paper. The As levels they quote for HFSA are extremely high compared with values in NZ for material used for water treatment. In fact our HFSA has As levels more like his pharmaceutical grade NaF. I am aware of Hirzy’s own political activity so would really like to know if the data he quotes for US HFSA is really appropriate for material produced for water treatment or is for material produced to less rigid standards.

4: Activists who go on about heavy metals in HFSA must be really naive to think their story is convincing. The fact is chemicals used in water treatment have to satisfy suitable levels of purity and certificates of analysis must be produced to show this. Material not satisfying the regulation a is rejected by the water treatment plants.

Do you really think our regulating authorities are interested in pouring toxic elements in to our drinking water? You need to be utterly stupid to think that goes on.

5: The fluoroapaites in phosphate rock with the higher levels of F are just not suitable for direct application. Put it on the land and not only will F not be a problem but P is released very slowly. Hence the need for acidulation of such phosphorites. Nevertheless, some of the HFSA is sometimes returned to the superphosphate, partly as an acidualtion acid. It actually is strongly bound to minerals in the soils and so far has not caused problems in NZ. However, if that becomes more common I can see a future situation where our local river water will increase from 0.2 – 0.3 ppm F to more suitable levels and hence fluoridation will be superfluous. It already peaks around 0.6 ppm sometimes.

In short, Dan, you should not believe everything you read – especially from politically motivated groups like these activists. You need to adopt a more critical approach and certainly stop restricting yourself to such limited sources. And be aware that they are dishonest with their citations.

The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense.

Then what mainstream scientific communities reject it?
It’s the same question I ask about global warming or the theory of evolution.
If the idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports climate change is nonsense, then where are the scientific communities that are the exceptions?
If the idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports the theory of evolution is nonsense, then where are the scientific communities that are the exceptions? Name them.

Lasting Achievement
Almost 30 years after the conclusion of the Grand Rapids fluoridation study, fluoride continues to be dental science’s main weapon in the battle against tooth decay. Today, just about every toothpaste on the market contains fluoride as its active ingredient; water fluoridation projects currently benefit over 200 million Americans, and 13 million schoolchildren now participate in school-based fluoride mouth rinse programs. As the figures indicate, McKay, Dean, and the others helped to transform dentistry into a prevention-oriented profession. Their drive, in the face of overwhelming adversity, is no less than a remarkable feat of science-an achievement ranking with the other great preventive health measures of our century.

Cedric, you don’t seem to understand the difference between propaganda and science. Science is based on evidence, not endorsements. There is no good quality research which shows that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless, no matter how hard the fluoridationists try to spin it. Everyone with some common sense knows that forcing industrial grade fluoridation chemicals onto whole populations in uncontrolled doses is ludicrous. If you can’t understand science or ethics, there is the opposition of the US Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Union of Scientists, and many other medical, dental, scientific, and environmental professionals, to consider.

Dan, you are not thinking critically, just trying to support you own bias.

Where did I say that F and As “are not toxic?” At high concentrations F is toxic, as are many other essential and beneficial elements. But at low concentrations F is beneficial. That is documented in the scientific literature – which you aren’t accessing via Fluoride alert. I have shown this site often completely misrepresents the science.

As for As – its not an issue relevant to fluoridation at all. Did you not read my article on the porkies being told about toxic meals in HFSA?

Come on – approach these things critically, and widen your reading beyond the misinformation of the anti-fluoridation propaganda.

Ken, you really shouldn’t be lecturing people when you don’t even understand the basics. The scientific evidence indicates that apart from gastrointestinal effects, fluoride toxicity is determined by dose, not concentration. As shown in the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water, and the Iowa study, the fluoride dose received by people with the same fluoride concentration in their drinking water is highly variable. You haven’t shown anything except that you’re a moron.

Richard, how is the US EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists not mainstream? You’re not making any sense. The idea that science is based on evidence is also apparently beyond you.

Here’s some quotes from the 2006 National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water.
“Excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development can lead to enamel fluorosis, a condition of the dental hard tissues in which the enamel covering of the teeth fails to crystallise properly, leading to defects that range from barely discernible markings to brown stains and surface pitting.”
“The improper mineralisation that occurs with enamel fluorosis is thought to be due to inhibition of the matrix proteinases responsible for removing amelogenin fragments. The delay in removal impairs crystal growth and makes the enamel more porous.… Fluoride apparently interferes with protease activities by decreasing free Ca2+ [calcium ion] concentration in the mineralising milieu.”
“There appears to be general acceptance in today’s dental literature that enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride intake”

Richard, are you trying to prove to the world that you’re clueless? I answered Cedric’s question, but you haven’t answered my question. And I have actually read the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water from start to finish. I’d be very surprised if you can say the same. If you did read it, you obviously didn’t understand it.

Ken, you’re hilarious. Personally I don’t think there is any such thing as an “authority in science”, because science relies on evidence, not authority. However, there aren’t many groups of scientists who are better placed to assess fluoride toxicity and the safety of fluoridation than those at the US EPA, if any. The default position for employees is to go along with management, so when the scientists at the EPA oppose management on a major public policy, it tells you something.

For some reason I’ll give greater weight to peer-reviewed science from former senior scientists at the US EPA than your completely unsubstantiated opinion. You still don’t demonstrate any grasp of the difference between concentration and dose, and ignore the fact that dental fluorosis is a toxic effect which is common in fluoridated areas. You accuse me of ignoring almost all of the literature, which is exactly what you and the other toxic waste pushers are most guilty of. What exactly are “hire concentrations”? Is that where a buffoon like you is hired to talk crap about fluoride concentrations? If I were you, I’d concentrate on trying to understand the existing English language instead of inventing words like “strawmannery”.

The authority of science is based on evidence, not opinion Dan. And all the evidence, not cherry picked evidence and quotations. Certainly not the dishonest use of citations and quotes by FANNZ and fluoride alert.

You are ignoring the consensus assessment of EPA scientists and prefer the claims of one or two union officials – because it supports your own biases. In fact you go out of your way to discount the assessment of EPA scientists – because it doesn’t support your biases.

In this blog I am dealing with specific claims made by local anti-fluoridation activists – and have exposed their outright lies and misinformation. That upsets you because it doesn’t support your biases.

And your anger is an indication that you attempt to protect your biases from the evidence, all the evidence.

Here’s some quotes from the 2006 National Research Council report titled Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. It should be obvious to anyone with at least moderate comprehension and arithmetical ability that this information is relevant to artificial water fluoridation.

p 189 “The endocrine system, apart from reproductive aspects, was not considered in detail in recent major reviews of the health effects of fluoride (PHS 1991; NRC 1993; Locker 1999; McDonagh et al. 2000a; WHO 2002; ATSDR 2003).” The 2007 Australian NHMRC report can be added to that list.
p 189 “an estimated 12% of the population has low concentrations of urinary iodine”
p 197 “As with the animal studies, high fluoride intake appears to exacerbate the effects of low iodine concentrations. Uncertainty about total fluoride exposures based on water fluoride concentrations, variability in exposures within population groups, and variability in response among individuals generally have not been addressed.”
p 197 “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function. However, because of the complexity of interpretation of various parameters of thyroid function, the possibility of peripheral effects on thyroid function instead of or in addition to direct effects on the thyroid, the absence of TSH measurements in most of the animal studies, the difficulties of exposure estimation in human studies, and the lack of information in most studies on nutritional factors (iodine, selenium) that are known to affect thyroid function, it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances”
p 197 “Several sets of reported results are consistent with an inhibiting effect of fluoride on deiodinase activity; these effects include decreased plasma T3 with normal or elevated T4 and TSH and normal T3 with elevated T4… The antihyperthyroid effect that Galletti and Joyet (1958) observed in some patients is also consistent with an inhibition of deiodinase activity in those individuals.”
p 198 “Subclinical hypothyroidism is considered a strong risk factor for later development of overt hypothyroidism. Biondi et al. (2002) associate subclinical thyroid dysfunction… with changes in cardiac function and corresponding increased risks of heart disease.… subclinical hypothyroidism is associated with increased cholesterol concentrations, increased incidence of depression, diminished response to standard psychiatric treatment, cognitive dysfunction, and, in pregnant women, decreased IQ of their offspring”
p 198 “The possibility that either dental fluorosis (Chapter 4) or the delayed tooth eruption noted with high fluoride intake… may be attributable at least in part to an effect of fluoride on thyroid function has not been studied.”
p 218 “In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate”

This is me.
This is me asking you a question that you can’t seem to answer.
Waffle won’t work.
Doesn’t work with creationists.
Doesn’t work with climate deniers.
Sure as fuck isn’t going to work with you.

Here’s some quotes from the…

Nobody cares.
More gormless cut-and-pasting?
How fucking rude.
Grow up.
You don’t just lay a steaming turd of pasted text and then run away.
You want to make an argument?
Then make it.
Only….you…have to make it.

OK Dan, you can copy and paste (although you may have trouble with page numbers because yours don’t correspond with my copy of the report).

But so what?

This report was tasked with looking at existing research to decide on recommendation about the relatively high maximum F levels in the US standards at the time (4 ppm F). Consequently it was looking a possible effects of F at concentrations well above those relevant to fluoridation in NZ (0.7 1.0 ppm F).

The majority of the reviewers recommended lowering the maximum level but concluded that the evidence for real effects was still sparse or non existent and therefore recommended specific areas for further research.

The relevance of this report to the fluoridation issue in NZ is that we are probably at the right levels (our standards probably required removal of F from source water above 1.5 ppm F). That there is no current research at the moment suggesting that the 0.7 a 1.0 ppm F recommendations are too high.

Cedric, it was actually Richard who implied that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation. I was just calling bullshit on that claim, which I have seen elsewhere plenty of times, but never with any convincing evidence to back it up. Considering that fluoridation is forced onto many people who don’t want it, that Richard made the first claim here, that about 95% of the world’s population does not receive fluoridated water, and that several countries which previously had water fluoridation programs have rejected it, the onus is on the toxic waste pushers to put up or shut up.

I really wish toxic waste pushing ignoramuses would stop associating climate science with fluoridationist nonsense. Climate change is extremely serious, and the science credible, unlike fluoridation “science”. Thinking that everything which has had the label “science” slapped onto it is all the same is about as dumb as it gets. Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that America and Australia are especially guilty in relation to both. When a dentist supports industrial silicofluoride toxic waste pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside their area of expertise. Whenever anyone speaks in favour of fluoridation they are just blowing hot air, because there is no good quality evidence they can cite, and because the whole idea of using public water supplies to medicate populations is ridiculous to everyone with at least a little common sense.

Ken, you are trying to deny what I have put right under your nose. Only people who are seriously stupid, like Richard and Cedric, are going to fall for that. Anyone who bothers to read the 2006 NRC report can see that there is a great deal of information which is relevant to artificial water fluoridation, that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding safety in many areas because the research which has been conducted is inadequate, and that it is more likely than not that fluoridation causes several adverse health effects in various susceptible subpopulations.

Cedric, it was actually Richard who implied that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation. I was just calling bullshit on that claim, which I have…

This is the internet. It’s possible to just scroll up and quote either yourself or others. The words have not disappeared. Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense.

This is you.

Then what mainstream scientific communities reject it?

This is me.

See? It’s not an unfair question. You made a claim that’s way out there.
I can go to a scientific community at random and google them on the issue of fluoride and get support for water fluoridation. I can do that in a heartbeat without any effort whatsoever.

Can you say the same for your side? You don’t seem to be able to.
In fact, you just ignore my question and just carry on hoping it will go away.

Imagine some climate denier popping up and saying…
“The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense.”

Well, I’d ask them “Can you think of a mainstream scientific community that rejects climate change?”

Then they would react the way you reacted. Richard Christie would repeat my question again and again and they would do just what you did.

The way you reject a scientific consensus A is the way you reject a different scientific consensus on B or C or D etc. Take your methodology and switch the labels around and you instantly become a climate denier or a creationist or an anti-vaxxer. Your standards are the same.

“Cedric, it was actually Richard who implied that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports the science on climate change. I was just calling bullshit on that claim, which I have seen elsewhere plenty of times, but never with any convincing evidence to back it up. Considering that carbon tax legislation is forced onto many people who don’t want it, that Richard made the first claim here, that about 95% of the world’s population relies on cheap, effective and reliable energy, the onus is on the Marxist Warmist Hippies to put up or shut up.

I really wish Warmist Gore Worshippers would stop associating the science of fluoridated water with climate change nonsense. Fluoridation is extremely serious, and the science credible, unlike climate “science”. Thinking that everything which has had the label “science” slapped onto it is all the same is about as dumb as it gets. Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further government interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. etc.etc.etc”

If you don’t want to be lumped in with the anti-vaxxers or the moon landing deniers or the climate change deniers or the HIV deniers then you have to abandon their playbook.

(typos)
Imagine some climate denier popping up and saying…
“The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports the science of climate change is nonsense.”
(…)
Fluoridation support and the warmist camp of junk science of climate change are both examples of gross irresponsiblity to further government interests.

Here’s another example.
Take the climate denier playbook and put it side by side with the creationist playbook.
They’re the same.

Cedric, the truth of anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with scientific consensus. As I have told you before, science is about evidence, not consensus. If you are incapable of assessing the evidence, shut the fuck up about climate change, because you are not helping the cause. You seem to think that my argument against fluoridation relies on disproving a supposed scientific consensus, but it actually has nothing to do with that. The only reason I challenged Richard was to show that he is full of crap, as are you and Ken. You wrote “I can go to a scientific community at random and Google them on the issue of fluoride and get support for water fluoridation. I can do that in a heartbeat without any effort whatsoever.” What a load of garbage. All you can do is parrot a list of endorsements which I’ve seen many times before. The US EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists comes closer to being a “scientific community” than any of the organisations on that list. The endorsers are also predominantly American or from other fluoridating countries, but as I said about 95% of the world’s population does not receive artificially fluoridated water. The fact is that none of you toxic waste pushers can provide any good quality evidence that fluoridation is anything but dangerous and useless, for the simple reason that no such scientific studies exist. You go on about endorsements and anything else you can find to distract people from the central issues, which are the unethical nature of fluoridation, the lack of control of dose, the lack of evidence for safety and efficacy, and the evidence of harm.

Fluoridationists lied about the 2000 UK York review, as they do about everything relating to fluoridation, so a statement was made to set the record straight, which appears on the York University website.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found
Originally released: 28 October 2003
A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD).
“The review specifically looked at the effects on dental caries/decay, social inequalities and any harmful effects.”
“We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”
“The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”
“As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.”

Dan, you do not help your credibility by copying and pasting screeds of text but leaving out key paragraphs which do not fit your narrative. Let me fill in the gaps for you:

“What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children’s teeth.

This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down’s syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. ”

Now, my impression is that, going by what the press release says, it is ambiguous who exactly has been lying about its contents. Certainly you seem willing to omit three paragraphs worth of text which contradict your statements about fluoride being toxic waste or dangerous, and those inconvenient bits which talked about what the evidence which was available said.

Cedric, the truth of anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with scientific consensus.

Either there is a scientific consensus on topic “x” or there is not.
If you want to claim there is no scientific consensus on topic “x” then that’s great but you have to do it in a way that doesn’t make you sound like a creationist or an anti-vaxxer or a tobacco lobbyist.

The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense.

This is you.

Then what mainstream scientific communities reject it?

This is me.
This is me calling you out on your bullshit.
Name a single scientific community. Do it. Put up or shut up.

If you are incapable of assessing the evidence…

I don’t have to.
I’ve got NASA.
NASA can assess the evidence. They are great at that sort of thing.
The best in the world.

You seem to think that my argument against fluoridation relies on disproving a supposed scientific consensus.

If you want to abandon your claim then do so.
Let me remind you what you wrote.
It has not magically disappeared. It’s still there.

The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense.

This is bullshit. Pure and simple.

The only reason I challenged…

I don’t care “why” you said it. The fact is that you said it. It’s bullshit.
There’s no squirming around that.

“I can go to a scientific community at random and Google them on the issue of fluoride and get support for water fluoridation. I can do that in a heartbeat without any effort whatsoever.”

Yes, I can. It’s child’s play.
I can do the same for Evolution and climate change and the link between smoking and cancer etc.
But….you can’t.

“Then what mainstream scientific communities reject it?”
Name one.

The US EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists comes closer to being a “scientific community” than any of the organisations on that list.

You don’t get to define what is or is not a scientific community.
It’s not up for debate. There’s no haggling to be done.
Playing Humpty-Dumptyisms with the English language will get you precisely nowhere and just make you look even more clueless.

The fact is that none of you toxic waste pushers…

Nothing to do with me.
I ‘m taking my cue from the scientific communities.

You go on about endorsements…

Never mentioned the word. That was all you and your silly hand waving.
Let me remind you what you said…

The idea that “the planet’s scientific establishment” supports water fluoridation is nonsense.

This is you.

Then what mainstream scientific communities reject it?

And this is me. You had nothing then and you have nothing now.

Cedric, the truth of anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with scientific consensus.

Dan: You [Cedric] wrote “I can go to a scientific community at random and Google them on the issue of fluoride and get support for water fluoridation. I can do that in a heartbeat without any effort whatsoever.”
What a load of garbage.

Umm, let’s see then.

How about googling Royal society of New Zealand + fluoride

They’re representative of the mainstream scientific community. In fact, one could hardly get a more representative body.

You lot really couldn’t be more stupid if you tried. Chris, the point I was making is that there is no good quality scientific evidence which supports fluoridation. The extra paragraphs you quoted actually provide further backup for the point I was making. Apparently you are so thick you think that a lack of good quality evidence is a good thing. It is incredibly obvious that there should be good quality evidence for both safety and efficacy, and it is astonishing that some people completely fail to grasp that point. Your claim that the extra three paragraphs of text contradict my “statements about fluoride being toxic waste or dangerous” is complete nonsense. It is simply a fact that the fluoridation chemicals which are used for artificial water fluoridation are toxic industrial waste. If you don’t know that, do some research. The extent of the harm done by that toxic waste when diluted in public water supplies is a separate question. As for fluoride being dangerous, it isn’t even controversial that large numbers of people suffer very serious health problems from excessive fluoride exposure, resulting from high fluoride concentrations in groundwater which is not artificially fluoridated. I actually haven’t said anything on this page prior to this post about fluoride or fluoridation being dangerous. What I have said is that fluoridation has not been proven to be anything but dangerous and useless. The point, which evidently went straight over your head, is that the burden of proof is on the toxic waste pushers. In order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that fluoridation is something other than dangerous and useless, good quality scientific research is required. It really isn’t very complicated. Even if there weren’t any evidence of harm, the scientific standards which have been applied would still be disgracefully low, with attendant risk. Fluoridation is a huge experiment, and the authorities haven’t even bothered to make sure the results are properly measured. As it happens, with respect to several potential adverse health effects the weight of evidence is that harm is in fact being done. Much of the most important evidence has been published since 2000, when the York Review was completed.

Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of the 2000 UK York Review, has written:
“I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented”;
“It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review’s findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.”;
“The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was not characterised as, ‘just a cosmetic issue’.”;
“The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe.”;
“There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.”http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/letters/chewing-over-the-facts-about-fluoride-and-our-dental-health-1-2380603

Is that clear enough for you, Chris? Do you still think “it is ambiguous who exactly has been lying”?

Cedric, you are a total fruit loop. You’re doing a good job of proving my point about doing everything you can to distract people from the evidence. You can appeal to authority all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that fluoridation is based on a reckless disregard for ethics, pharmacology, and science.

Richard, I hate to break it to you, but New Zealand is not the centre of the universe. New Zealand has a very small proportion of the world’s population, and a very small proportion of the world’s scientists. New Zealand is a country where water fluoridation is prevalent, so it is hardly surprising that some mainstream organisations support it there. Around 95% of the world’s population does not receive fluoridated water, so pointing to an endorsement from a heavily fluoridated country does nothing to support the claim you made about the whole planet. And again you are appealing to authority, while ignoring ethics, pharmacology, and the scientific evidence.

Support for water fluoridation:
The National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health

Action for Sick Children
Association of Directors of Public Health Medicine
British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry
British Association for Community Child Health
British Dental Association
British Dental Health Foundation
British Dental Hygienists Association
British Dietetic Association
British Fluoridation Society
British Medical Association
British Orthodontic Society
British Society of Dentistry for Disability & Oral Health
British Society of Gerodontology
British Society for Paediatric Dentistry
Community Practitioners’ & Health Visitors’ Association
Denplan
Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK) of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom
FDI World Dental Federation
Health Development Agency
Help the Aged
Institute of Health Education
MENCAP
National Association for Dentistry in Health Authorities & Trusts
National Children’s Bureau
National Oral Health Promotion Group
NHS Confederation
NHS Consultants Association
North West Public Health Association
Oral Health Promotion Research Group
Royal College of General Practitioners
Royal College of Nursing
Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health
Scottish Association for Community Child Health
Socialist Health Association
The National Autistic Society
The Patients Association
The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
UK Public Health Association
Unison Health Care

Let’s review, Dan. You think fluoride is dangerous. A claim for which neither you nor anybody else has provided evidence. The York review does not help you there.

You think fluoride is a toxic waste. Because of the production process? Again, no evidence provided for the ‘toxic’ part, and the ‘waste’ bit is simply your bias talking. No way to talk sense into you on that one.

You think there is no high quality evidence fluoride works. Fair enough. But you do not get to pretend there is no evidence whatsoever. Again, the York review does not help you in that regard.

If you are going to quote the York review as authoritative, kindly have the decency to accept all its conclusions. If you do not consider all its conclusions valid, well, expect people to call you on your selective quotations.

If the omitted paragraphs further support your point, why then did you carefully excise them? Looks like an effort to dismiss the bits which undermine your prejudices to me.

Cedric, you are a total fruit loop. You’re doing a good job of proving my point about doing everything you can to distract people from the evidence. You can appeal to authority all you like,…

An appeal to authority? Really?
Do you honestly think that the creationists/climate deniers/ anti-vaxxers have not tried that gambit before?
Really?
(Hint: NASA)
It’s such a cliche. It’s just like someone accusing us of using ad hominem attacks. Happens all the time and it’s so very boring.
Find out what it means…BEFORE…you embarrass yourself on the internet.
Look it up.

This clanger of yours is not going away. I’m happy to repeat it again and again and again. So is Richard. It’s not going away.
It’s your claim. Either support it or withdraw it.
Ranting and trying to distract us will not work. People do the Gish Gallop all the time too. Around these here parts, pilgrim, it doesn’t work.
You are not doing anything new.

Dan Germouse – I note a comment of yours has ended up in spam – presumably because it has 15 links in it!

I am not going to bother releasing from spam this time for 2 reasons:

1: 15 trolling links is well behind the pale – it is a cynical use of my blog for you own advertising purposes rather than discussion. Trolling like this is enough to permanently filter you to spam.

2: Importantly, your manner here has been abusive. I realise that for you this is an emotional trip and you have no real interest in the facts but want to express your hatred towards people that do. But the abuse, language and derogatory characterisation of others is also sufficient to relegate you permanently to spam.

However, if you can actually take part in discussion without extensive copy and paste, over the top linking and cynical advertising, and can stop your abusive manner I am happy for you to participate.

If you can’t I will activate the spam filter for you. I am interested in healthy discussion here, despite differences of opinion, not abuse and trolling.

Wow.
That deserves a double “Fuck You”. 15 links?
Really?
What planet are you from where that’s actually an OK thing to do?
I can safely say that I have never abused the priviledge of commenting on anyone’s blog and laying a steaming turd of 15 links.
It’s beyond bad netiquette.
That’s simply insane.

FANNZ has sort of responded to this article at Misleading claim against FANNZ of misrepresentation.

It’s a confused response relying on a bit of strawmannery, irrelevant chemical assertions and an unjustified assumption that F in fluoridated water can not possible have a topical effect. So I will just make a few points:

Reading their response reminded me of some Treadgold’s jelly-wrestling justifications.